[boost] Re: BOOST_STATIC_WARNING ?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-18 20:59:48

Daryle Walker <dwalker07_at_[hidden]> writes:

>>> My point was that warnings are non-portable constructions made up
>>> by compiler makers.
>>
>> So are the semantics of #include.  That doesn't mean we can't count
>> on certain similarities (though they may be hard to find).
>
> Actually, the semantics of #include aren't that made up; they are
> constrained by standard.  

Slightly.  They are still "non-portable constructions made up by
compiler makers."

We rely on what we can count on in practice.

> In contrast, a compiler doesn't even have to have warnings, 

In practice they all do.

> let alone define them in an easy-to-exploit manner or with any
> similarity to other compilers.

Whether they do in practice remains to be seen.

> I don't want to see a big effort (i.e. a long #if/#elif chain from
> heck with subtle details and could break at the next release of any
> compiler) on something that is inherently non-portable.

How about a small effort?  There aren't really all that many
front-ends.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com